Putin's North Korean Soldiers

[Ray1990]

I have found that all European reporting on the Russia/Ukraine conflict/war tends to somehow field a different perspective in regards to NATO.

From the US perspective, it is noteworthy that despite NATO's conduct and posturing, it will be the U.S. that actually musters the resolve to make the killing stop.

I think that NATO is an anachronism which is desperately trying to 'be relevant' in a Post cold war world.  But their "impetus" to "expand" is an irritant to the international community... with it's perpetual "make war to achieve peace" trope.  It seems clear that they are now users of the "economic hitman" strategies of old. 
NATO objectives override the natural development of international order... all to achieve dominance for NATO's own 'goals.'

I think the US spends way too much money on the "anti-communist" fad in politics. 
NATO is the epitome of that fad... and can't seem to change their own behaviors... I can only speculate as the "reasons" for that... but I am suspicious about global arms trade... and the movement of weapons systems that cost a fortune to replace.

Putin's objectives may be to satisfy the game plans of oligarchs... but then the same might also apply to NATO.

Russia, during its' Soviet era was a huge contiguous chunk of land... but the Soviets broke themselves trying to play a military game in a world of economics. 
It was never going to work long-term without war.  

The West should be learning that the obverse is also true... and it's not Russia v. The West that's the common denominator there... the common denominator is war.

War is only good to serve war and warring. 
NATO is existentially about war, not peace.

It is NATO that must stop serving war... risking war, effecting war... as a threat and tool of their idea of "progress."
I think we needn't dump more money into that NATO bin.
Times change.

If NATO was obsessed with expansion then why does it have more partners than members? Quite a few of those partners could join NATO tomorrow (not literally) since they are already fully complaint with the values NATO abide by... That said, Turkey takes the piss and probably shouldn't be a member. Japan and South Korea are fully complaint as an example. So were the Swedes and Finnish, they didn't need MAP (Membership Action Plan) as they were already forward thinking nations from that "western" perspective.

They have a free market, they have a robust and lawfully protected democracy, they fundamentally respect human rights, have reasonable and fair law enforcement, militaries that are operated by and controlled by the civilian population... I could go on but you should get the picture.

It's not the West Vs Russia or even China and Cuba for that matter, if anything it's NATO Vs other forms of order and ideals of which anyone with respect for ideals such as liberty and freedom would find preferable compared to the alternatives of which are often detestable to a free thinking mind. Yes, we seemingly have to choose.

Or maybe I'm just another invalid cheerleader rooting for the hand that feeds me so to speak, democracy is the worst from of governance except from all the others, right?

That said, I agree. The US pulls too much weight and it's unfair on them. They also make the majority of money too though. Your currency defends the free market and it's often your technology defending the air, sea and land. 1/5 of your F4's went to allies and partners of NATO, the F35 was basically a NATO development spearheaded by the US, development is a beast upon itself which is what NATO is all about. The alternative when it comes to military corporation is trying to fit together multiple systems and developed warfare into a cohesive entity which would get overly complex. The pathway chosen is probably the best in the short-term and long. Especially if you consider the constant moaning about taxes on weapons.

Yet China has a bloated Navy, world trade is often at risk and there's an active war in Europe, N Korea tests nukes and defies pressure concerning the development of missiles designed and intended to carry nuclear warheads. So yes, NATO members need to pull their socks up and pull proverbial thumbs out of their nether regions and put them to work. NATO is supposed to be a cooperative entity.

Self reliance is good. Do you see the US being self-reliant in a world where the US dollar is abandoned? I don't. I also don't see a world with much stability if the US lost half of it's forces or more like it's NATO allies over the years. Nations are often the epitome of masculine expression, they will compete. Without rules? Expect a mess. Didn't Russia prove that a proper defence should be of the utmost importance?

So is honesty and disclosure... Our potential enemies don't follow many rules, hence Russia's demands feigned as diplomacy just before their special military operation (war) then they feigned a multi-pronged invasion as military exercises.

I'd happily pull the flaws out regarding NATO as there's plenty of failures, we're free to talk about them in 'Western' nations though which is a distinct quality of NATO members and partners. Those nations at least live under the guise of international law, they at least pretend to uphold economic fairness too.

From an individualistic POV the social mobility of a person is often drastically increased when their nation is compatible with NATO, I'm not exactly a fan of capitalism either but just like democracy I'd say what other reasonable alternative exists?

In short, NATO is a lot more than am entity built for war, I'd also say it's a preferable entity that offers more security for the nation and individual compared to the alternatives.